Radically Confusing Realignment Talk

[TransMonk]

Selig, committee considering radical realignment plan

When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14-person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows." The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season).

As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East. In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths. The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons.

One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight. A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.

Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions. It is important to remember that the committee's talks are very preliminary and non-binding.

"But if there is something that comes up we feel should be addressed during the season, we can make a recommendation then," said committee co-chair and Braves president John Schuerholz, referring to less complicated issues such as pace-of-game directives. "This is all about any ideas that help make the game better."

The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee's one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls. (Selig is pushing for another in-person meeting, such as at the All-Star Game. The committee includes current managers and executives, making in-person meetings logistically difficult.) The mechanics of the system are far from nailed down. But what is important is that the committee is making good on its mission to look at absolutely any on-field idea that could make the game better. Blowing up fixed divisions as we know them -- and even leagues -- certainly qualifies as radical thinking.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/03/09/floating-realignment/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

[Fman99]

If the Mets ever are forced to play a full season in a league with the DH in place I will stab myself in the eye with my own genitalia.

[TransMonk]

That's just one of many reasons why I can't see this ever working.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, if you just float within your league, then that wouldn't happen. The Mets would only be able to be in the NL East or NL Central. (Based on the time zone rule.) The Rockies, though, would be able to play in any of the three divisions, East, Central, or West.

You know, as weird as this is, I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

[Valadius]

This is fucking awful. AWFUL. Switching divisions because you think you're going to suck this year? Please.

[Ceetar]

I'm not tied to the divisional set up. In fact, the floating idea might do something for those that lament the old days of balanced schedules and rivalries between the Mets-Cubs or whatever your favorite was.

But the way it's currently being presented is not good. Cleveland moving the AL East to get those lucrative games against the 'good teams'? Isn't that almost like giving the Yankees a bye? "Oh, you guys are good on paper. Let's move crappy rebuilding teams into your division to make it a forgone conclusion that you'll win."

What about playoff teams being mandated to play all 7 other playoff teams the next year? Might be an interesting thought.

[metsmarathon]

why bother with divisions anyways? you can shuffle up the schedule unbalancedly, prioritizing on prior season's record and distance of opponent. if the mets win 100 games, and san diego wins 60, the don't play the padres much next year. but if san diego also wins 100, they play slightly them more, but not as much as they would play against a 100 win pirate team.

so lets say the 100-win mets would play 4 games against a 60-win padres team and 6 games against a 60-win pirates team. and they would play, say, 18 games against a 100-win padres team, but 24 against a 100-win pirates team.

how many games would we play against the phillies? well, more than two would just be unfair, seeing as how they only won 30...

and maybe then you limit the inter-league games to teams with similar records, but ditch the locational priority...?

[Farmer Ted]

The only realignment I'd be in favor of mirrors the English Premier League. If you're in the bottom four in the standings at the end of the year, to the minor leagues you go. Baltimore, KC, Washington, and Pittsburgh...see you later. Hello Sacramento, Louisville, Durham, and *cough* Scranton.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Thing is, my first response is that this would sort of being doing the same thing --- allowing teams to shift their priortities as they rebuild --- while having the added un-American incentive of protecting those teams' Major League status (and opportunity), keeping the cartel closed to outside teams, and selling the fans of such teams down the river.

I say oppose it.

[A Boy Named Seo]

That's the thing, allowing the Indians to shift to the AL East doesn't do anything to make the Indians better, and I doubt the added revenue from more Sox & Yanks games is gonna make up for all the pissed off fans. And like Ceetar said, it does nothing to slow the Boston/New York axis they seem so concerned with anyway.

And how pissed would you be if you're the Tigers, who won 86 games, finished 1 back of the Twins, and now you've got the Rays coming over? Eff that.

I think parity is lame. Even more so when it's forced.

[Gwreck]

The realignment I'd most like to see is moving a team back to the AL and keeping the leagues and divisions balanced in size. If they won't move the Brewers back to the AL Central (and then KC to the AL West), Houston seems like a logical choice to get the boot to the AL West.

[Frayed Knot]

I think parity is lame. Even more so when it's forced.[/quote:2kp9ofby]

THIS!

[batmagadanleadoff]

The realignment I'd most like to see is moving a team back to the AL and keeping the leagues and divisions balanced in size. If they won't move the Brewers back to the AL Central (and then KC to the AL West), Houston seems like a logical choice to get the boot to the AL West.[/quote:2r7114qh]

Can't do this. There'd be an odd number of teams in each league. A 162 game schedule requires that on most days of the week, every single team is scheduled to play. That's why the leagues are split at 16 and 14. The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day.

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I also think artificially created parity blows. That said I don't mind they are discussing things, even whacky things.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Selig discussing wacky things? I am shocked. Shocked.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I'm a little shocked.

[Gwreck]

The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day.[/quote:ympyt662]

Can you elaborate further? Because I was pretty sure that this *is* possible.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day.[/quote:37i3yk6x]

Can you elaborate further? Because I was pretty sure that this *is* possible.[/quote:37i3yk6x]

Oh, I agree with you. Personally, I think that it could be done. But I read that it can't. Maybe the powers that be prefer all interleague games to be bunched up into a few weeks of the season, as opposed to spreading them out over the entire season. (Two 15 team leagues would guarantee interleague play throughout the entire season). Maybe it's a question of unwilling rather than unable.

[Guest attgig]

one issue that preliminary schedules come out before the season's over. what if by the end of the year, a team like the pirates are having yet another miserable year, and the schedule first comes out that they're aligned with maybe the phillies, the mets (cuz we're going to be awesome this year), and the cubs who have just won their division.....
then, the pirates decide this offseason is going to be THE offseason to open their wallets....

even if there's tons of free agents they want, they'll look at their schedule for that year, and be like... who am I kidding?

and even if they push releasing the schedule back some, it'll become a chicken or the egg type of game for mid market teams like the orioles who could be greatly affected by this. do we really spend a lot of money but then potentially be screwed by being put with the sox/yanks again, or do we hold off until the schedule comes out, and THEN spend as much as we can?

it's too messy in terms of re-aligning....

a more reasonable/logical way of keeping competitive balance are league min payrolls/salaries caps. that's how all the other sports do it, because it's a lot more easily managed and just makes more sense...

[Frayed Knot]

The scheduling logistics can't be solved by having at least one interleague series scheduled every day.[/quote:tbxk8l6p]

Can you elaborate further? Because I was pretty sure that this *is* possible.[/quote:tbxk8l6p]

Oh, I agree with you. Personally, I think that it could be done. But I read that it can't. Maybe the powers that be prefer all interleague games to be bunched up into a few weeks of the season, as opposed to spreading them out over the entire season. (Two 15 team leagues would guarantee interleague play throughout the entire season). Maybe it's a question of unwilling rather than unable.[/quote:tbxk8l6p]

Yes, it's certainly possible from a logistical standpoint.
I think at least part of what made them skittish about going to a 15/15 arrangement is that if a vote were to come up to DIScontinue inter-league play then they'd really be up a creek without a Louisville Slugger paddle.

[TransMonk]

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.[/quote:38tnriea]
I'm in the "for" column on this.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think 1,000 teams is too few.

[willpie]

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.[/quote:3cbx0wwr]

If I recall correctly, there's something about the number of teams being divisible by 8 that drastically reduces the difficulty of scheduling. I'm no mathlete, but I'm reasonably certain I read that somewhere. Assuming that's not something I made up out of whole cloth, I can see the argument for 32 or 24:
A 24-team league would have spectacular talent on every team. It would make the league way more exclusive, and lend a certain prestige to the league. No talent dilution here.
A 32-team league would probably result in more fans. I grew up in a medium-large state that has one pro sports team (get it, Blazers!). It was an 8-hour drive north or south to go to an MLB game. As a young baseball fan, I had no identity, and often wore a different cap every summer. It wasn't until my college years brought a burning desire to move to the city that I latched onto the Mets, and frankly, it still bums me out that I didn't have a home team to root for as a lad. Don't kids have a right to a reasonably local team to root for? The recent quality of play in the NBA suggests that, given time, the talent will catch up to the size of the league. The numbers work: even numbers, divisible by 8, in both leagues. More players would have jobs (this might only matter to the MLB union, but there you go).

Hmm; reading my own notes, I guess I lean toward 32 more than I thought. It's completely stupid that Portland doesn't have a team.

[Benjamin Grimm]

There certainly are places that are expansion worthy, if they wanted to go that route, which I doubt.

The South is the fastest-growing region of the country, and while there are teams in Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta (and St. Louis) there's still a big untapped region in the South East. I'm pretty sure the Carolinas or Tennessee could support a team. I know you need a larger population base to support an MLB team than you do the NFL or NBA, but there are plenty of people down there.

And yes, the New York area can (and should) get a third team. North Jersey is the most likely spot, I'd think.

I'd like to see a population-map of the U.S. overlaid with the market areas for the existing MLB teams. I think we'd see some obvious areas that could be exploited.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Don't kids have a right to a reasonably local team to root for?[/quote:3k1aqh1l]
Which is why my first act as commissioner would be dissolving affiliation agreements so every team in every town small and large is fighting for their own interests. Struggling. Warring. On behalf of that tousel-haired freckle-faced Willpie in Mrs. McGowan's second grade class at Chinnichuk School.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I was all for contraction. I'd prefer that the total number of teams is a multiple of four. 32 teams is too many for me. 24 is perfect. 28 is more realistic, even if improbable.[/quote:331m44fc]

If I recall correctly, there's something about the number of teams being divisible by 8 that drastically reduces the difficulty of scheduling. I'm no mathlete, but I'm reasonably certain I read that somewhere.[/quote:331m44fc]

Multiples of eight are the easiest to schedule, but especially so when there were 4 divisions (2 Easts and 2 Wests). I think that the formula is derived by multiplying the number of total divisions by two. But ease of scheduling is also dependent on whether MLB wants a schedule weighted towards divisional play or a more balanced schedule.

As to Grimm's post, about a year ago, I read a study about potential baseball expansion cities. If I remember correctly, Portland, Charlotte, Nashville and Las Vegas were considered to be the cities that would best support expansion baseball, according to that report. The report questioned whether "best" was good enough, though.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Most such studies though, leave out adding teams to esteablished territories. Greater New York could handle six teams and New England three.[/quote:3ah002x0]

I wouldn't mind another NY metropolitan area team. I also agree with the idea expressed in your earlier post that teams should have the freedom to relocate freely. That freedom should produce more balance. Being the lone baseball franchise in Pittsburgh or Kansas City all of a sudden might not be so disadvantageous if the mega market revenues were divided among five or six franchises instead of two.

That study I referred to was knowingly limited to expansion into cities without a MLB team.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, I could never get that point home to my Pittsburgh-fan friend Tim. Letting teams move particularly into established markets, while perhaps creating initial shuffling, should bring long-term stability to suffering markets by cutting down the competitive advantage of the well-situated teams.

Plus, the way the Lords of Baseball honor each other's territory is contrary to the American law that other industries live under.

[Valadius]

So here's a map:


Basically, if anything, we need more teams in the South and West.